My curiosity is where you got you're supposed "facts." According to studies violent crime (involving firearms) in both Australia and especially in Great Britain rose dramatically after the latest firearms bans took effect! It was also shown that the rise in crime demanded that more British law enforcement offices carry guns to defend themselves and the public. In spite of an almost total ban on firearms there have been mass shootings! So, I ask again, where did you get your facts?

We need guns to protect our constitution...in case we ever have to abolish this government...not saying that i want to. Its just that protection we have...stop living in your 9-5 bubble it's going down and soon you will be defenseless, our forefathers would turn in their graves if they could see what is happening.

America has a terrible problem with guns that will never go away. The reason is that so many Americans don't even see guns as a problem, but a solution. My British perspective is that such thinking is pure madness. More guns=more gun deaths. Period. It's obvious to just about everyone else on the planet apart from the American people. Good luck with that one America, you're in deep.

You say America has a terrible problem with guns. I say we have a terrible problem with criminals. You say "more guns= more deaths." But the stats say that gun deaths caused by criminals and accidents has substantially decreased in the US during a period when tens of millions of additional guns have been purchased here. What has increased is the number of criminals shot and/or scared away by law abiding citizens armed with guns.

The UK has an even worse rate per 100,000 of rapes, burglaries, and assaults, but fewer gun deaths. Maybe the people calling for the UK solution are too weak, lazy, or irresponsible to learn how to own and use firearms for self defense. Maybe it's easier to lay back and reflect on how civilized you are and trust the government to handle your personal security. Many in the US are like me and would prefer to provide for our own security. In this way we actually have security during those minutes when the police have not yet arrived.

Refusal to properly deal with violent criminals is at the heart of why the US, the UK, and many other Western nations have such a problem with crime. We wring our hands about "the children" whilst doing nothing to actually protect them. Why are there perverts who have raped more than one child free in society? What, you think they won't do it again? Seriously? Why don't we get severe in our punishment of thieves? Why do you think they do it over and over?

Those of you in the UK who are victims of crime and believe in this anti-gun, anti-personal freedom policy deserve exactly what you get. You dial the police and then hope that throwing your cell phone at your attacker makes him stop. Good luck with that. Those who live in places that don't respect freedom and the right of self defense are making their own choices. In the meantime, anyone who chooses me as their next victim will have his moment of fame on the evening news. And he won't do it again to anyone else.

Maybe one the more enlightened thinkers here can enlighten me as to why the same group of people who rail against the use of guns for self defense are also those who insist upon lax sentences, and never successful "rehabilitation" for gangsters and sociopaths who prey on women, children, and elderly victims.

Finally, the one that just takes them all are the rich, elitist snobs who preach to us about the horrors of personal gun ownership from behind the protection of armed security. Mayor Bloomberg and countless "entertainers" come to mind here. How about we take guns from their security details first? Just for their own safety of course. Since, according to their propaganda "a gun in the home is more likely to kill a member of the household than defend against a criminal..." What a bunch of hypocritical trash.

Explain that to the 2.5 million citizens of America who have saved their lives and the lives of those around them by using a concealed firearm against an assailant. Explain that to all the people who have stopped home invaisions by having a gun. Explain that to all the people who have suffered from police brutality. Explain that to me, a law abiding citizen who owns guns to defend myself from criminals both street and political.

Wow, this is an interesting group. I spent hours reading threads for and against gun control schemes and read nothing suggesting criminal control. With all the people spewing stats about the gun murder rate in the UK, has anyone thought to look at the stats regarding those committing the murders? Not just the mass murders but how about the vast majority of murders where only one or two were killed? In liberal controlled areas suck as Chicago, DC, Detroit, and Los Angeles. How often is it that a person who just used a gun in a criminal and felonious manner a first timer? How many have multiple felonies?

I read all this crap about the dire need to disarm law abiding citizens but zero about why we allow guys who have committed two or more violent felonies to be back on the streets when they’re still under forty!
We wring our hands about “saving the children” but refuse to execute the 20+ year old rapist whose victim is under fourteen and there is DNA present inside them. They serve a few years, they get out, and they do it again.

Where is the call to execute on the first offense anyone who is convicted with DNA and/or video evidence present of using a gun in a violent crime? It doesn’t matter whether they fired it or not. If a person uses a gun to commit a robbery, rape, or any other violent felony they have clearly demonstrated a wanton disregard for others. Game over. No chance to kill another person or possibly kill the next victim will be allowed.

How about life sentences for those who beat the crap out of or rob defenseless women, children, or senior citizens? What, no room you say? But there’s plenty of room in prison for thousands of potheads because they defied the Prohibition? How’d the Prohibition on booze work out? How’s the War on Drugs working out? Is there any common sense left around here?

Until I see these types of real controls put on violent criminals I refuse to take seriously those who want me to give up any of my rights to keep and bear firearms. I do have a permit to carry and I do carry every day. No one need guess what my response to coming home and finding someone burgling my house would be. Unfortunately I have had to use force three times in my short life to protect life and property. There is nothing fun or empowering about carrying a weapon and it’s an awful day when it’s used. In return for the responsibility, cost, and nuisance of carrying a weapon and paying attention to my surroundings I have never been hurt too badly by the criminals I’ve crossed paths with. All had criminal records. All were violent.

Your personal safety and that of the women and children who accompany you are your responsibility. Not the government’s. Not the police’s. It’s incredible that many here will call me a nut for accepting and bearing this responsibility.

"And my hunch is that the model found in places like Japan or Britain—no guns in homes at all, or almost nonetheless —is on balance safer."

Your hunch? That's what you've got? Bear in mind academia and 90%+ of media (both news and fictional entertainment) are virulently gun-hostile. If there was actual EVIDENCE that gun control works it would have been crammed down our throats a thousand times. Instead we get lots of studies and statistics that are completely besides the point. Like the comparison between British and US murder rates, but no discussion of whether they began to differ when UK gun controls got tighter. In fact they were the same whe the UK had LOOSER gun.laws than the USA.

Your "hunch" is simply prejudice and has no place in a news item, let aloneness as it's central claim.

There are statistics of the murder rate going up as the control is debated and still rise the first year then start to go down However civilian gun deaths go up in war and somewhat stay up for the people who experience war for the rest of there lives. The NRA gets another conclusion from lots of guns and little gun crime with the Swedes and the Swiss

After reading this sits it is nicely said that the site the site really describes and shows that GMOs are plant or meat products that have had their DNA altered in a laboratory by genes from other plants, animals, viruses or bacteria. GMOs were introduced to foods in the early 1990s, only 18 years ago.So it is very important and similar with health and safety jobs also.

True, British "Bobbies" don't carry firearms, but what tourists don't see are the masses of unnoticeable, and armed, plain clothes officers. As was reported to me by a British student I befriended while there, "If you had a gun, and pulled it out in public, you'd likely be dead before you could pull the trigger."
Two more main arguments:
1. Britain's gun crime rate is lower, yes. But gun crime is only part of the equation. Britain's TOTAL VIOLENT CRIME RATE is actually significantly higher than that of the U.S. Why? Because if you let loose a lone psychopath into a city of pacifists, armed only with a butter knife, you will soon have a lot of dead pacifists. Those who wish to harm or kill people will not choose to do otherwise simply because they lack the convenience of a firearm.
2. It is not narcissism that promotes the belief that an armed citizenry can and will be the last defense against a tyrannical government. Rather, it is history that has taught us this lesson. Yes, we may be individuals now, but when called upon, as happened with the American Revolution, we will have the capacity to organize and fight. Remember, the standing armies of colonial America were tiny, but when needed the armed populace banded together to fight. They would have been of little use against the British if they had only had butcher knives in their homes. Since then, dictatorial regimes ranging from Nazi Germany to Fidel Castro's Cuba have removed firearms from their citizens because they knew that having an armed citizenry was the single biggest threat to their regimes. It is not an opinion, but a fact; when a country's citizens are armed, they are free, and when disarmed, they are subjects.
So, while I believe that everyone has a right to their own opinion, it is not an opinion when I say that yours are based on either emotions that you have hidden from yourself, whether you know it or not, or they are based on facts which were incomplete or erroneous when you formed your conclusions. This is exactly the problem with American politics; half-cocked theories are put into play before the facts are vetted and the theories are tested.
I hope you decide to re-research your conclusions.

however something the author likely isnt ever going to answer, is whether he wants to be subject to the whims of a psychopath, or killer should the situation ever comes about.(without a gun) the author disagrees that citizen arming is the last defence against crime, however when the police come to an unarmed mans defense, body bags are the only necessary equipment to bring along. plus this author did not realize the obvious and simple solution available to our country. posting police officers at schools has been enacted in several states, and has been extremely successful.
now the author would probably argue that this takes away personel that can respond to 911 calls. i frankly think that it wont take that many people to clean up the bodies left over from "gun control".
lastly, is a general responce to gun free zones (even though the author did not adress this) but the only thing that gun free zones acomplish, is telling a potential murderer that the only gun in the building, is what they bring in with them!!
gun control will be like prohibition. unregistered illegal guns springing up everywhere

I think the British Student you befriended was pulling your leg or a complete fantasist. There are 7000 fire armed trained police in the UK at present. Divide that number by 4 to allow for 3 shifts a day plus people on day off. This is 1750 trained but not necessarily armed police at any one time. This number is to cover a UK population of around 62 million over an area 94,000 square miles. Lets assume that 45 million of those are over the age of 10 and under the age of 65 (I make the assumption that people outside the age range are unlikely to be in the market for a gun and comment a crime). That means that each officer has to watch over 25000 people. I think we can safely say your student friend is wrong. By the way I'm a recently retired UK Police officer and never felt the need to be armed. I left that up to my trained colleagues.

I think the British Student you befriended was pulling your leg or a complete fantasist. There are 7000 fire armed trained police in the UK at present. Divide that number by 4 to allow for 3 shifts a day plus people on day off. This is 1750 trained but not necessarily armed police at any one time. This number is to cover a UK population of around 62 million over an area 94,000 square miles. Lets assume that 45 million of those are over the age of 10 and under the age of 65 (I make the assumption that people outside the age range are unlikely to be in the market for a gun and commit a crime). That means that each officer has to watch over 25000 people. I think we can safely say your student friend is wrong. By the way I'm a recently retired UK Police officer and never felt the need to be armed. I left that up to my trained colleagues.

There are 270 million registered guns in the US although this does include everything in inventory not sold yet. There are projections that there are somewhere between 110 to 200 million illegal, untrackable guns in the US.

GavenFamme,
you need to read your history a bit more. Statism and oppression and cooercion of the majority (in favor of regulating or controlling ownership of guns) on the minority (the individual gun owner)?

The more I read on the history of gun ownership in this country, going back several hundred years, the more I realize many Americans and myself don't really understand the complexity of gun ownership and supply of guns to state militias and the role of the Federal government in arming them. The passing of Amendments like the 2nd Amendment may have been motivated by concerns that state militias wouldn't be adequately armed by the Feds for national defense.

This, at least, is what I understand to be some of the points made by by Kevin Sweeney and Saul Cornell, in All Guns are not Created Equal, in the Chronicle of Higher Ed:

The main reason why gun control works so well in the UK and Australia where it wouldn't work here is because the UK and Australia are fairly isolated in that they really don't boarder on anywhere else. It's much easier to control what goes in and out of small island countries than it is to control what goes in and out of a country like the US, where they boarder on Mexico, a country home to one of the most prolific traffickers of illegal firearms and illegal round types. If I had the money and desire, I could find the Zeta Cartel and buy a full auto AK, incendiary rounds, and literally even a bazooka, possessing any of which will land you a minimum of 20 years in prison. Even if you somehow got gun laws similar to the UK and magically made all guns currently in the US disappear, you'd still have the bad guys getting them from the cartels in Mexico. Just for the record, I got nothing against Mexicans and I'm not one of those anti-immigration nuts, but those Zeta guys are some real jerks, and they're pretty powerful, too. In the UK, Japan, or Australia the only way to really smuggle guns in would be by boat or plane, which are both very difficult to do, and even if you could do it why bother? The market wouldn't be nearly as big since the population isn't nearly as big for one, and in the case of Japan the population pretty much stays the same all the time, meaning the gangs stay the same and are therefore easier for law enforcement to keep under control since they know what to expect and as a result keeps black markets limited. In the US you have all different gangs from all different places and it adds new black markets each day. The point is there are many different factors as to why gun control works better in some places than it does others.

E-G,
yes, no doubt, geography and having contiguous land boundaries make control of what comes over the border harder to police. But patrols or officials continue in their work and some reality of state/national borders persists, as in ocean-bordered ountries and elsewhere.

I'll guess that the largest weapons sources for the Mexican cartels are gun manufacturers in the U.S. and you can buy your weapons (including military-grade) from them, just as the cartels do. And large markets and the profits help to keep gun manufacturers in this country prosperous. They are likely the real financial power behind the gun lobbies in the country.
You are right when you say gun control works better in some places than others, but the fact remains alongside gun ownershipo, gun control has always existed in this country -- there's ample evidence in the historical record.
It is perplexing to hear people comment on this site that gun control and bans will likely lead to more bans and of other things that can be dangerously or criminally used, like bats, knives, fertilizer, explosives, and the like -- slippery slope arguments. There are hopefully already are some safety regulations for some of them, adequate or not, as well as just individual caution and common sense.

The slippery slope arguments don't rationally convince. They just evoke more fear and paranoia and likely encourage more people in this part of the world to run out and purchase guns, lest there be laws in the future to make it harder to do so.

For anyone here:
An excellent, insightful commentary by Marc Pitzke can be read at Speigel Online, on what many Germans and many (including myself) think of Americans' delusions and fantasies about self-defense and guns. He also notes:

[The] old fairy tale of self-defense is popular in the pro-gun lobby. It has also been statistically disproved. Civilians who shoot back usually miss. And those self-proclaimed defenders of law and order often hit the wrong target, such as Trayvon Martin in Florida. Or 17-year-old Jordan Davis, who was shot at a gas station recently because the music in his car was too loud.

...America leads the world in shooting deaths, with some 30,000 people killed by guns each year.

Also, Gregory Gibson, a father who lost his son in a shooting, on
Americans' love of gun ownership and the real cost, to our children, with their lives:

Guns kill. That is what they are for. More guns, more public shootings. Backyard shooting is permitted in my state, just as it is in Newtown and so many states in America. Do you think we want our children playing in our backyards anymore, knowing that our neighbors can fire guns and maybe only be taken to jail on criminal negligence charges?

So many of the the pro-gun posts on this site spout their dimly mercenary, insecure, Hobbesian world view to justify their gun rights...to self-defense, as something naturally given or endowed. Truthfully, as long as we continue to pass laws and grant the pro-gunners rights that define and make their gun ownership a reality, everyone in this country suffers.

Actually it hash't been statistically disproved, in fact it's been confirmed. Police are 5 and a half times more likely to shoot the wrong person than ordinary citizens. Of course you know the statistics aren't with you which is why you don't cite any. In fact it is your view, that your neighbours are terrible people who can't be trusted and must be controlled by the government, which is Hobbesian.

I must add my two cents here. Had someone entered a school with a gas can and a Bic lighter, covered those same children with gas and ignited them, would we still be having this conversation? Ban gasoline? Would the security at the school have stopped this from happening? How many assault weapons were used at the world trade center? Who did Timothy McVeigh shoot with a high capacity weapon? Are there no laws concerning terrorism? Go ahead, take away everyone's right to protect themselves, and maybe you'll sleep better...

I have read this article a few times over the past four weeks, each time through the prism of the latest offence (in both senses of the word) from the NRA and attempts from well-meaning politicians to move tepidly in the direction of more sane gun laws. I share the sense of despair, more so as each day goes by. The gun control train left the station years ago. It has picked up so much momentum - one gun for every man, woman and child in the US - that no efforts at applying the brakes now will make any difference. The train may slow down, but it won't be turning around. Even if it stops completely, the fact is that the firepower already in the hands of private citizens is more than enough to keep the carnage going for generations. That isn't to say that the efforts to control guns shouldn't continue, if only for the symbolic value of demonstrating a change in attitude, but no one should be deluded into thinking it will make America as safe as other developed countries any time soon.

The lowest US murder and violent assault rate in a generation with more than 300 million firearms in the hands of law-abiding private citizens. Compare to the violent assault rate in England, which is THREE times higher than ours. The english medical establishment has called for a ban on LONG KITCHEN KNIVES due to their prevalence in assaults and murders in England.

The innocent children's lives taken at Sandy Hook are a great tragedy and everyone on the left claims that if you are a supporter of second amendment rights and assault weapons, you don't care about those victims. I have four school age children and care about the victim's deeply. As a police officer, I can tell you that "assault rifles" are used in a fraction of a percent of all assaults and murders. In 15 years, I have NEVER been to a scene where an "assault weapon" was used in a murder and only know of one case where one was fired at someone.

I do know 100's of people, personally, who own, hunt, target shoot and use "assault rifles" very responsibly. MOST are military veterans who are extremely skilled with said arms. Have we had a mass shooting involving a veteran-those, like I, who risked our lives to protect all of the amendments of the constitution-nope...

This is probably the best anti-gun article I've read in the last month, and this is coming from a hardcore 2nd Amendment advocate. I appreciate the humility, respect and intelligence you used in approaching this subject. This article should be a model of political discorse for both sides.

The Constitution does not give us the right to bear arms. It says the right to bear arms "shall not be infringed". ... We already have this right, because it doesn’t come from government —it comes from God. Life and liberty come from God, not government.
`
/Government only infringes rights.

As a component of self-defense, the right to bear arms is tied to the reality expressed in our Declaration of Independence —that all men have rights to Life and Liberty —these are the rights endowed by our Creator (God).
`
/And Congress shall not infringe our means of protecting those rights.

I don't know if you're a troll LWE, but giving you the benefit of the doubt: are you really saying that God (I assume you mean some sort of Christian god) bestowed upon humanity a "right" to bear assault weapons? I have read the Bible quite widely and must have missed the passage in which this right was granted.

No, I did not.
~
As the 2nd Amendment implies, the right to bear arms isn’t given to us by government, and it isn’t just an American right. It is a human right. As a fundamental part of self-defense the right to bear arms is intimately tied to our Declaration of Independence —that all men have rights to Life and Liberty —these two, are rights endowed by God.
~
Every person on the planet has the right to defend themselves from those who would oppress them, or kill them.
~
When felonious criminals have weapons, taking away the right to bear arms is nothing less than eliminating the right to self-defense; Life itself.
~
/History majors, pay attention.

scroll down and you'll see elsewhere what others and I have observed and said to LWE and others like him.

Doesn't his name suggest what his position is more than likely to be?

Fortunately for us, many Americans aren't zealots. Unfortunately, though, we've listened for too long to the view that guns aren't the problem. They are, as is the irrational belief that rights aren't limited or to be infringed on. LWE doesn't see any connection between his and every group's uninfringable, God-given rights to own guns, the special interests who've had their best years weakening gun control laws, influencing politicians and mainstream culture, and the reality of an increasingly unsafer public sphere.

I've never been to a pro-gun march.
`
I'm a lawful advocate of the 2nd Amendment, because when felonious criminals have weapons, taking away the right to bear arms is nothing less than eliminating the right to self-defense, Life itself.

The obvious - this nation is spending billions creating the most heavily watched society in history. Has this stopped crimes? There isn't a single video from Newtown, Aurora or any of the other mass shootings.

Why are we talking about guns when our problem starts with the economy. Obviously, the DHS and all of the other surveillance programs are a waste of money. They're stopping anything. THe wars aren't stopping anything either.

Stop the wars, dismantle the police state, take money out of politics, invest in the US and the crime rates, the mass murders, violence in our culture - these things will all begin to decline.

Guns aren't the problem - the path we started down after 9-11 is the problem. Corruption and the loss of freedoms always leads to a more violent and unstable society.

Since the problem is violent criminality, and it is not guns or knives or baseball bats; how can society deal with its criminal elements?

Those countries that have extremely strict gun bans also have extremely high violence rates — and irony of irony — England’s experience is the most stunning example. From the time it imposed limitations on guns so stringent that almost all law-abiding citizens are now disarmed, England has seen its violent crime rate soar to the point where the number of violent crimes per capita is the highest in the First World:

mmm actually no they are not, you have been misinformed. if you believe a country that has 4x less murder than the US has 5 times the violent crime than you really are a bit silly. Violent crime is measured completely different in the U.K, all assaults, robberies, sexual assaults are classified 'violent' and the % of reporting has also increased. so really the violent crime rate is very similar the US. what isnt similar though and what can 100% be compared is the murder rate. The US has 4x the murder rate of the U.K and the rest of the 'developed world'.
Also your knowledge of British Gun law is completely skewed. Guns have been banned for self defense purposes for 70 years. the only guns affected by the 1997 act were those available to private collectors and sports shooters. Don't get me wrong we do have an increase i some violence and some places are seeing more illegal guns surface. But this is due to the rapid increase of gang culture. which im sure you are aware of in the US.
i'm not blaming you for being mislead, but its not only America that has 'fox news' unfortunately the daily mail is ours...

First you call me silly, then you admit that U.K. violent crime rate is similar to the U.S. ... Silly boy ... Cite your murder rate stats.
`
Furthermore, why is the U.K. seeing a rapid increase in gang culture in such a polite society?
`
/Criminal Justice majors, pay attention.

Too true. I looked into this and discovered the UK reports unarmed robbery as violent crime. Guess what? Britain has an autotheft problem, which Americans love to point in the violent crime stats. In the UK someone takes your car, in the US someone takes your life. I fear the gun culture, fanatical adherence to a 250 year old amendment designed when the US was too poor to afford a standing army and wanted to create millitias,and paranoia of their own government has condemned the US to the state it i8s in. I can't understand how Americans ignore the correlation between a massive pile of weaponry and the problems they have. No other western democracy has anywhere near the violence the US is experiencing.

I thought it wouldn't require explanation that 388 deaths and injuries from gun crime in the UK was a self-evident improvement over the thousands of fatalities and injuries we have every year, but since you asked I consulted FBI Uniform Crime Reports and UK published crime statistics:

As someone else pointed out, the UK is much broader in its definition of "violent crime": getting shoved in a bar fight counts. They also count BB guns and imitation guns as "firearms" for purposes of counting firearms crimes.

And as an American who lived in the UK for several years, I think it's safe to say that they view our gun mania as irretrievably nuts. They sure aren't interested in emulating our example. At all.

And citing one newspaper article as evidence that the poor virtually gun-free UK has somehow degenerated into a cesspool of violent crime is about like getting your news from Rush Limbaugh. Both the US and UK have credible sources of online crime statistics that may be used to make assessments based on actual data. Turn off Fox and give it a try!

With regard to the dubious effectiveness of an armed citizenry to thwart violent crime, I respectfully suggest that readers investigate the policy of the Swiss government which requires most men between the ages of 20 and 30 to be in possession of a fully automatic weapon which the government provides to them. Regardless of that government's reasoning for arming its young males with assault rifles, the consequence of this policy, which would give the advocates of "no guns in America" apoplexy, is a country with an extremely low violent crime rate. Many of the gun related murders quoted in American statistics by the prohibitionists occurred in urban areas where gang violence is rampant, fueled by a highly competitive illegal drug trade. Regardless of any "no guns allowed" law that may be passed, there is only a minority of individuals who, in my opinion have their heads in a cloud somewhere, really believe urban gangs will hand over their weapons.

In addition to that improbability, one has to ask what cost to the taxpayer will accrue to enforce such a ban. The idea has been floated that the government might run a program similar to "Cash For Clunkers" and offer to buy back all the civilian owned weapons. Just such a program was done in Australia, netting the government just over 600,000 weapons, but at a cost of $50 million. If estimates are even close for the number of firearms in America, and assuming an approximate parity in cost with Australia, the taxpayers will be footing the bill for an amount akin to the bailouts we've already been saddled with. I don't recall when or where, but I do recall that a local government years ago made an attempt to run a program of this nature within its jurisdiction. It was an expensive proposition and ended up being "Cash for Clunkers" of another sort. Many of the weapons turned in were barely serviceable and hardly useful to any madman seeking to create his own war zone.

While it isn't an idea that originated with me, I would love to see the reaction of the prohibitionists if the government were to issue signs stating "The owner of this home is unarmed" and mandate that those signs must be visibly posted near the home's entrance 24/7.

It seems to me, with all things considered and a little time passes to cool the heels of the ardent prohibitionists who have jumped on all the recent firearm related tragedies as examples of what's wrong with private gun ownership,that the prudent action to take is to leave the issue alone. If they cannot, then it seems to me that the appropriate way to change a right specifically stated and provided for in the Constitution is by Constitutional Amendment. As was the case with the last unsuccessful prohibition, I suspect just such an Amendment would subsequently also be repealed after enforcement is proven impossible.

The delirious notion that effective gun control or prohibition can result from an Executive Order may satisfy the Progressives and Liberals, but as with any effort to enforce an illegal law, the public has an obligation to resist by simply refusing to participate.

Theirs is a delirious notion indeed! Eurocentric subjects don't understand the United States of America:

There is an irrevocable reality about gun ownership in America: It is irrelevant how many or few gun deaths occur, how many crimes are committed with guns or how many guns are acquired illegally.

All that matters is that every man is born with the inborn right to defend their life, safety and honestly acquired property. ... To do so, one must be armed to a degree that they can oppose the most sophisticated and powerful weapons currently employed by anyone who may threaten their life, health or property.

I have a right to be armed sufficiently to defend against any criminal or government agency which may try to attack me. That is the spirit, intent, and purpose of the 2nd Amendment.

Nobody in power has ever floated the idea of firearms prohibition. To paint the current push for some kind of national legislation tempering Americans' "right" to own military-grade weapons without thorough background checks or sensible waiting periods (which is what the current situation amounts to) as a prohibitionist movement is utterly false. Unfortunately, the White House's grasp of spin on this issue is astonishing, allowing the NRA's extreme libertarian viewpoints to gain more traction than they should; that Biden even mentioned the possibility of executive orders has provided ammunition (sorry) for the extreme factions to paint the impending proposals as a threat to the Second Amendment. Nobody but nobody of any importance is going to repeal that thing, so you can lay down your "Don't Tread on Me" flag for the time being.

Even ardent gun-rights advocates such as Sam Harris (http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-riddle-of-the-gun) support such measures as closing the gunshow loophole and requiring stringent background checks and mandatory training for firearms owners. What possible reason could there be to oppose such measures?

Switzerland's gun policy requires all purchases of ammunition to be registered and recorded, and every gun legally sold to bear a serial number; the requirements for ownership of militia weapons mandates annual training and practice; laws for transportation and storage of firearms are strict and permits to carry are difficult to obtain; citizens are limited to a maximum of three firearms apiece. The Swiss model is often held up as an example of a gun policy that works. Too bad the Americans who praise it from abroad are the very ones opposing proposals for even much less stringent policies at home.

Feinstein's bill prohibits more than 120 types of weapons, to include many prohibited based on 'military characteristics.' The bill also included shotguns, handguns, rifles, 'assault rifles,' and a whole list of others.
Pay more attention - yes, there are bills being pushed to ban a wide array of guns.
I'm with you though on the background checks though. In Pa, you're not getting anything other than a single shot shotgun or rifle without a complete State Police background check. They can deny, accept or 'no response' those checks. No response is simple - 'we don't know enough at this time.' This is a very effective method for delaying gun purchases for people who have missing records or for any other reason and - these checks are required whether you are buying in a store or at a gun show.
That type of gun control seems reasonable so long as there is a clear policy that allows a citizen with no criminal record to obtain a gun. As for mental health - that's a whole other bag of worms.

Agree with you on all points; the only spot where we disagree is whether limiting access to certain firearms constitutes prohibition. My point stands: that nobody, not even Feinstein (who is probably asking for twice as much as she thinks she can get in order to get half of what she's asking for), is proposing taking guns away from the law-abiding public.

It is incumbent on both pro- and anti-gun stakeholders to come to a bipartisan agreement on what constitutes reasonable and necessary access to firearms under the second amendment. When you dig beneath the thin skin of hysteria surrounding this issue, it becomes pretty clear that although the extreme fringes will never budge, the vast majority of reasonable Americans are not nearly as far apart on this issue as it might first appear.

Not for normal people ... excluding water pistols, other preferences should include:
~
.38 Special +P (for street thugs)
12 gauge Pump-action (for home-invaders)
AR-15 (for protection against violation of "the right of people to keep and bear arms")
~
/History majors, pay attention.

...readers investigate the policy of the Swiss government which requires most men between the ages of 20 and 30 to be in possession of a fully automatic weapon which the government provides to them...the consequence of this policy, which would give the advocates of "no guns in America" apoplexy, is a country with an extremely low violent crime rate.

Investigate away. According to my Swiss friends, you'll find most of those military-issue guns in the back of a closet, with no ammo. How that has any effect on the crime rate is a mystery.

If we were only arming a "well-regulated militia" instead of pretty much anybody who can afford the armload of AR15s of their dreams, I wouldn't be apoplectic at all. In fact, it would be a major improvement. Not going to happen, though.

It is a fact that the vast majority of gun crime is done by perfectly normal and sane folk that go insane for just a tiny bit, usually as a result of stress or trauma. The other big reason is that people leave their guns around where kids cannot get them.

Now, every gun owner that's had their gun stolen or their's gun's ripped a kids head into tiny pieces of flesh "by accident" has, until that point, assured everyone that they are safe and responsible with their guns.

What assurance, 100%, do I have that you will:

A: Never, ever, ever go crazy and put me or my own in danger (literally you must assure me that you never interact with anyone or anything that could cause you any sort of emotional response given that you have access to death).
B: That your weapons cannot and will not EVER be stolen or left out, etc, etc.

Given that you can't give those assurances, you ARE the problem. You're the one that everyone needs protecting from. It's weak, paranoid individuals like yourself that make the US a dangerous place. You say you get your weapons to defend yourself but that's not true, you're weak and scared, you're a coward that can't fight his own battles and must keep items around to feel strong. You will not fight, you will run away like a little kid and hit the person from far away where you're safe.

The only 'weak', 'pathetic', 'coward' that will ever harm you, is you. (In addition, you cannot give me the same assurances about you, --that you just outlined about me). Furthermore:
~
A. Liberals (you) point to criminals who kill, then reflexively give criminals the benefit of the doubt, and want to solve the problem by infringing on the rights of the law-abiding!
~
B. Liberals (you) are only able to think on behalf of criminals and debate on their terms.
~
/That's abnormal behavior.